Unions in Familiar Fight With New Foe

Unions are facing off against an unlikely foe over a now-familiar issue, as Democrats in Massachusetts move to limit municipal workers' power to negotiate their health benefits.

The effort is the latest by lawmakers in a budget jam to roll back public-union rights. In a state where Democrats control the House and the Senate as well as the governor's office, it shows how the pressures of skyrocketing health care costs on state and local budgets are undermining labor's political clout even in traditional union strongholds.

The unions are fighting back with a campaign against the proposal. "We're going to increase the intensity and get more people engaged in the process," said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO.

The labor federation, which represents about 175,000 municipal workers in Massachusetts who would be affected by the proposal, has run radio ads and turned out thousands of police, firefighters and teachers to rally at the statehouse over the past week. It plans to push those efforts further and increase lobbying of individual lawmakers over the next month.

Earlier this week, the Massachusetts House passed a budget that includes a measure giving 351 cities and towns the authority to set co-pays and deductibles for municipal health benefit plans. Cities that chose to follow the plan would still have to negotiate with unions over workers' share of premiums. The measure, which was voted on separately, passed 111-42 in the House, where Democrats hold a 128-31 majority.

Democratic House Speaker Robert DeLeo said municipalities would save $100 million and have costs in line with health plans administered by a state insurance commission covering nearly 350,000 state employees and their families.

Brian Dempsey, chairman of the state House Ways and Means Committee, said, "We certainly need to embrace this change that will allow communities to have an additional tool to rein in health care costs."

Sharpening the Ax

Massachusetts opens a new front in the fight against public-union benefits

How a plan proposed by lawmakers in Massachusetts stacks up against similar moves in Wisconsin and Ohio to scale back rights for public-employee unions and rein in benefits costs.

Massachusetts

Lets municipalities set deductibles and co-payments unilaterally

Municipalities must bargain over workers' share of premiums

Gives as much as 20% of cost savings to workers in the first year

Wisconsin

Increases pension and health-care contributions

Eliminates bargaining over pensions and health benefits

Ends automatic dues collection

Requires annual recertification

Negotiated wage increases are capped to inflation

Ohio

Ends automatic pay increases

Increases pension and health-care contributions

Eliminates bargaining over pensions and health benefits

Prohibits strikes

Negotiated wage increases put to voters if taxes increase as a result

It's not yet clear if the measure will pass the state Senate or whether one of two others that give unions more leeway—one by Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick and one by a Democratic House member—will prevail.

"If labor can't hold back the tide here, then it can't hold it back anywhere," said Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

Wisconsin and Ohio passed tougher Republican-led measures this year that curb public employees' power to bargain over benefits, boost mandatory increases in pension and health care contributions and make it harder to collect dues. Massachusetts Democrats have sought to distance their proposal from those measures. But a broad coalition of Democrats, including the governor and Boston's mayor, have said changes are needed to contain health care costs in a state with a projected $1.9 billion budget gap in 2012.

Municipal health care costs have risen 11% annually over the past decade, compared with 6.4% a year for a state-administered plan, according to an April study by the Boston Foundation, which administers charitable funds, and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which receives corporate funding.

The groups compared the most popular health plans in 14 cities, including Boston, to the private sector and the state-administered plan. They found that the average municipal premium for individuals was $7,785 a year, 39% higher than the average private-sector premium and 9% more than the state plans. Average municipal co-pays were $11, roughly half the state and private sector plans.

Of the 31 House Republicans, 29 voted for the bill. "In the end, this is all pretty much about saving jobs," most of which are unionized in municipalities, said House Minority Leader Brad Jones. He said Republicans waited to cast their votes until enough Democratic members had voted to reach a majority in favor of the plan.

"The Democrats are largely responsible for creating the existing system, so they needed to have a big hand in doing this," he said.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.